absolutely unequivocal that we take student safety -- in particular the no. 8, the no. 3, and the no. 38. you see the no. 8 represents the number of latino students proficient before the current principal took over at mlk. 8% were proficient in english language, and math. 3% or proficient in terms of african-american students before this principal took over. 3%. and if that is not enough, let's talk about 17 and 33. 33% of the latino students being proficient in language arts and 17% proficient in math. how can we as adults in this

community who have our high school diplomas and some cases have your bachelors degrees and master degrees and doctorates who have shown proficiency and gone to college, sit and purport to be for the kids when you have 3% of the african-american students proficient? how can we say that and not once have i heard what are you going do about that? we're going to do something about that and that is with a our strategic plan is about and you are with us or not and we welcome and join arms with the naacp, who have said, by the way, they are getting not one dime. not one penny and going out and raising their own funding to support our students at mlk and in the spirit of martin luther king jr., who went to jail because he wanted a better future, we're going to do

whatever it takes to ensure that our kids have a better future at mlk. but as you think about this, i want you to think about 8, 3, 33, and 17. and when we start talking about those numbers being 100%, then we're talking about what the real work is about. [ applause ] >> so we're going to move on to -- >> president yee? superintendent, i am from martin luther king. >> i'm sorry, do you have a speaker card? >> i don't have a speaker card. >> i'm sorry. >> i am asking if i could say a few words, please? >> no. you don't have a speaker card. >> i just wanted to thank

superintendent carranza for taking a stand and for those watching online, letting them know the reality of what is really going on. if he is bold enough to take a stand, i hope and a pray that everyone here in this room, on this board, all educators, parents, security, secretaries, whoever they may be, who are in charge of our children when they are not in our care, and they are at the school site that we have the utmost compassion and respect for our children. so i just wanted to say thank you because all of you know on this board know how many times that have i come forward and asked for help, but what i have gotten in return is removal. i would like for you to reach out to me, because i know what works in the bayview and in the southeast. i know the families and the communities in the bayview. i know the church leaders in

the bayview and in the southeast sector of the city. i know that we need to close the achievement gap of the targeted population, which is the african-american, the latinos, the polynesians, and our chinese-american children, because we are having all of these problems at our school sites our chinese-american children have come to me and told me that they will not do well in the c s.a.t. and they are struggling and that should not be. thank you for allowing me this time president yee, thank you. >> thank you. advisory committee reports, appointments by board members? seeing none, item l. special order of business. i now call the public hearing and approval of the state

testing apportionment waiver. is there a motion and second? >> i move. >> second. >> reading of recommendation by commissioner designee. mr. burke? >> superintendent, commissioners, my name is john burke, i'm the supervisor for the assessments office. requested action that the board of supervisors -- the board of education of the san francisco unified school district will hold a public hearing regarding the submission of a generwaiver request to the california department of education and support said waiver under the general waiver authority of education code 330 50-33053, the california code of regulations section to be

waived. celdt ccr 1517-5b1a which requires that the california english language development test, california english language development test committee on higher education aparking lotionment request be sent to the california department of education postmarked no later than december 31 2012. a request for 88,790,000 dollars from the state, which if we submit this waiver we'll be able to receive. >> so i don't have any public comment cards for this. any comments from the board members. seeing none roll call. >> thank you, miss ly?

>> yes. miss wong? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> aye. >> dr. maufas? murase. >> aye? >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> mr. yee? >> aye >> seven ayes. >> thank you. the second special order of business would be the recommendation that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district review and adopt the developer impact fee amount and five-year reports for the five year ending june 30, 2012. is there a motion and second? >> so moved. >> second. >> reading by commission

designee. >> good evening, commissioners, it's that time for the most exciting report that you will hear. i thought i had the monoply until i heard the last item identified and i figured there was some competition for this report. there has been a lot of great news tonight, i guess in a funny sort of way buried in this rather droll report. for those of you who may remember that there were a couple of sections in the government code that require every school district in california, every year to provide the following information on what is called "developer impact fees," which are essentially the fees that a school district collects from developers that build within our cities and our counties, depending on whether it's a commercial or residential project and to report every year how much money we

collected and how much interest we earned and what we spent the money with and to make sure that money was spent appropriately. and so also provide a certain projection of five years down the road, what we intend to spend the money on? and that is a requirement of the government code and so every year we hire a consultant to do an outside audit of our fees and provide the report. and so the requested action, i would ask of the board tonight is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district review and adopt the developer impact fee annual and five-year reports for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2012. the attached report dated november 21,2012 rity relates to the collection and expenditure of developer fees. i would like to put out to the board, who i am sure -- what

is significant about that is less about the $2 million more, but that it indicates to actually a very large degree that the construction and sort of economic life and soul of the city of san francisco is coming back. we're back to about what we were collecting when the economy began to tank in 2009. and in the heyday, i think we collected between $8-9 million. so i think the prognosis in terms of collections being up is a healthy one not just for the school district, but for the city at-large and for a

point of reference, much of the monies that were spent last year were spent reconverting the horseman campus to continue to develop the former bryant campus for international high school. to redo the isa campus and to finish building the brand-new tech 21 career building at the john o'connell campus. so there is a lot of really exciting projects that this work has funded and next year we have a number of similar projects targeted including trying to replace the final remaining modular what's buildings that we are renting with permanent classroom buildings. so with that, i would ask if there have any questions that you might have and hopefully you will approve the report. thank you. >> thank you; there are no public speakers for this item.

any comments from the board or superintendents? >> no, but i read it. >> it's right here. >> i move the recommendations. >> we already did. roll call, please. >> have i one question? >> commissioner? >> thank you president yee. this report is annual or every five years? >> it's annual. >> it's actually both. it's done every year and what the government code says is that would like for developers in the city of san francisco to sort of having a non-binding five-year projection each year of what we're spending the money on, so theoretically we're not putting it in a box somewhere. we're not bound by those, but we try to give a listing of

work reflect what can be spent on. >> has this group done this every year? >> they have done this report for us every year for the last, i think, four or five years. and one of the other things, by the way, i might add that they are doing for us now is that sacramento has determined that school districts are allowed this year to raise their developer fee amounts that we charge developers. however, the only way we can do that is we need to demonstrate under the government code certain specific demographic and other sort of financial and economic conditions in the city of san francisco have changed to warrant that increase. so we have actually retained them to see if we are entitled to raise our rates, which would obviously help us and we won't

know that for several years. >> so this is a company that we subcontract with? >> yes. >> what is the amount for the work of this company? >> i think this work is $18 ,000 and the study is $25,000 on top of that, but that would only happen at times that we're looking to raise our rates and we have not raised our rates, since, i believe, 2005. >> roll call miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> thank you miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. maufas? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> president yee? >> aye. >> seven aye.

item m discussion of other educational issues. none. item n, consent calendars resolutions. item o, vote on consent calendar moved and seconded under section f. roll call, please. >> thank you. miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> i am taking the roll call on the consent calendar. >> miss mendoza? >> yes, except for k4. >> you are voting what on k4? >> i abstain.

>> miss mendoza? >> yes except on k3, 5 and 6 or actually 5 got pulled. on 3 and 6, because they are retroactive. >> thank you. dr. murase? >> yes, point of information, so the personnel item was receive sered severed, correct? >> yes.

>> the first item is f9 severed correct? okay, f13. i think commissioner maufas, you severed that? >> i did. we received courtesy of uesf president. are we in the midst of litigation and should we be discussing this item at all? >> the particular facts surrounding this item is a procedural matter based upon a submission of a resignation and then how that was addressed by our hr department.

and what follow on things occurred. this can be discussed in open session. >> thank you, i appreciate that guidance. >> can we talk about -- are we indicating that miss olsen should continue with her resignation? what is our position? i know we changed the date. i heard that correction earlier from the superintendent's office. >> i will go through the timeline. president kelly indicated that she rescinded in one day, one day after she submitted her resignation. on the first of november, the individual emailed the principal at her school informing her she was going to

resign and when would be the best time to do that? i have an attachment that supports that, should you want to see that. on the 6th of november, the individual teacher submitted her resignation effective november 16th. that was the 5th of november. >> it was on the 5th she submitted? >> the 5th of november she submitted her resignation and effective date on that submission and i have that, if you would like to see it, effective november 16th. on the 6th of november, the principal submitted the resignation to human resources through interoffice mail. on the 7th of november the resignation was entered into people's soft by human resources. on the 8th of november, hr, we

in hr posted the position opening dated for 11/7/2012. on the 8th of november also an applicant, one of our teachers contacted the principal interested in the position. correction on the 9th of november. on the 13th of november, the teacher -- the subject teacher, the resignee stated that november 30th would be her last day and have i that

attachment. on the 13th of november, the applicant interviewed with the principal of the school. on the 13th of november, the teacher in question submitted a second resignation, changing the effective date to 11/30. requesting that we change the date to 11/30. to november 30th from the 16th, which is why we changed that so we didn't have to do this twice. on the 14th of november, the teacher in question emailed the

principal and asked if it was possible to be reinstated and i can quote what she said and i have that attachment. on the 16th of november, i think i will just paraphrase -- >> is in the principal's response on the 16th? >> on the 16th the teacher in question emailed to the principal and said i never received a response, but i did want to let you know that i am talking with the union and they may be contacting you. also a parent told me today there were some parents who complained about my teaching with you. i wasn't aware of this and can i meet you with and there is another attachment. the principal went back to the

teacher and said i am not sure about rescinding your resignation and your labor representative would be the best to advise you in this situation. >> that is also on the 16th? >> that was on the 20th. the decision was made not to accept her rescission of her resignation. from legal and labor, our actions are appropriate. i will read to you the section from the agreement that we have with our contract with ue, which is pretty short. >> before you start that, can you tell me, is the 20th, i'm sorry, the 20th is when that was communicated to the subject miss olsen, is that correct?

>> the first day that she asked to rescind was the 14th and asked how it would be done, to her principal, not to human resources, but to her principal. >> correct. i have the notes from the 16th and the 20th you said? >> at some point in here she was told -- i don't know the specific date that she was told, that the rescission would not be accepted, but the bottom line is that we considered accepting is it, but didn't. she had -- i will read to you a final -- if i read what the agreement says, i am not sure i can. anyway. it's under "resignation." a teacher's written offer the

resignation shall be deemed accepted when filed with the board, superintendent or human resources department, except that if the teacher files a written revocation of his or her offer of resignation within three district working days, after its filing, shall be deemed -- it shall be deemed revoked. the board of education shall fix the effective date of the resignation no later than june 30th of the school year in which the residence nation was offered. district shall make good-faith effort to notify the uniton within 24 hours of the teacher's written offer of resignation, unless the teacher affirmatively requests confidentiality. and mr. kelly is correct that we did not appropriately notice the union. we have as a matter of practice, we have a lot of resignations throughout the year, and have not historically

noticed the union. i did not know there was a requirement. my bad that we noticed the union, but certainly our attorney's opinion is that doesn't affect the fact that an adult teacher made an adult decision to resign. and there was no indication that -- and a -- in good faith based on the resignation, we hired another teacher and placed that teacher in that position the first of the month. i don't think she is in it yet, but has been fired to go into that job and has a contract to fill that position and that was done in good faith.

i added a block that specifically states, do you want us to contact the union, yes or no? and then the last thing that i will submit to you is an email written by the teacher in support of the fact that it wasn't one day. written by the teacher to my staff and to a representative of the union, when says, "i would like to rescind my resignation, the date of this is the 30th of november and she said i would like to rescind my resignation. today is my last day with sfusd and i wanted to rescind about two weeks ago, which would have been the 14th, if she, in fact, did. we have no evidence that she submited it then, but it would have been too late. principal in question does not choose to -- no. 1 we have

replaced her. no. 2 the principal does not choose to rescind it, nor do we. >> is seems that the first notification was november 7th, is that correct? >> she submitted on the 5th of november. >> 5th of november. the first resignation was november 5th? >> yes. >> and we're not hearing about revoking the resignation until late in november, is that correct? >> the 30th of november. >> the resignee sent out an

email stating to staff that she resigned, is that correct? >> yes, she did. >> so when she put into motion wanting to revoke her resignation, she was actually past the timeframe of the parameters of when she could revoke? >> yes, she was. >> commissioner mendoza? >> i was wondering why we moved it from the 17th to the 30th? >> she submitted that and it was con [srao-epbts/] for us as well. con convenient for us as well and it's my understanding that